RAJENDRA PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted as follows. The notice dated 6.1.2009 was served on the Petitioner to show cause for the alleged violation of Section 6(2) of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (PDS Order, 2001 for short). Petitioner filed has show cause. By the impugned order dated 8.7.2009, contained in Memo No. 176, the license of the Petitioner under Bihar Trade. Articles (Licenses Unification) Order 1984 (Unification Order for short) and also the agreement under PDS Scheme has been cancelled on the ground of alleged violation of Section 6(1) read with 6(4) of PDS Order 2001 saying that it is violation of Unification Order. As per Clause 11(2) of the Unification Order, the notice is to be given regarding proposed cancellation but the said notice was issued as to why proceeding for cancellation be not started and therefore the licensing authority had made up his mind to cancel the license and the notice was a mere formality. No appellate authority has been appointed by the State Government under PDS Order, 2001 in terms of Section 11, read with paragraph 7 of annex to the order. As per the counter affidavit, the show cause was filed on 27.8.2009, whereas in the impugned order dated 8.7.2009, it is said that show cause was not satisfactory. No reasons have been assigned why the show cause of the Petitioner was not found satisfactory. Moreover, the impugned order has been passed on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner contained in the order passed in confiscation case and therefore filing of appeal before him will also be a mere formality. Further, the order of confiscation was set aside in appeal. Moreover, it is not alleged as to which provision of which law has been violated by the Petitioner. He relied on the judgment Baiju Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2000 3 PLJR 321.

(2.) Learned State counsel on the other hand supporting the impugned order submitted as follows. Under the law, the three proceedings i.e. Criminal case, confiscation case and proceeding for cancellation of license are independent proceedings. In this case, a criminal case was lodged when it was found that Petitioner was trying to sell the rice meant for distribution under PDS in black market. In the confiscation case, Petitioner did not take part and it was held that Petitioner was guilty of violation of Section 6(1), read with Section 6(4) of the PDS Order, 2001. Accordingly, order of confiscation was passed and the Licensing Authority was rightly directed to start the proceeding for cancellation of license. From the show cause of the Petitioner, it will appear that he had no defense at all. He did not show any cause against the allegations made against him, rather he simply submitted that a criminal case and the appeal against the confiscation case was pending; and therefore if the Petitioner did not state his case against the allegations, how he can complain that no reasons were assigned while canceling the license and it was rightly said that the show cause was not satisfactory. He further submitted that the counter affidavit refers to the show cause filed on 21.8.2009 in the confiscation case (Annexure-4) and not to the show cause filed by the Petitioner in the proceeding for cancellation of license.

(3.) The submissions of Mr. Agarwal are not acceptable. Petitioner was asked to show cause as to why in view of the allegations therein, a proceeding for cancellation of his license be not taken in accordance with law. Therefore the show cause was against the proposed cancellation in terms of Clause 11(2) of the Unification Order. Then the counter affidavit refers to the show cause filed by the Petitioner on 21.8.2009 in the confiscation case and not to the show cause filed in the proceeding for cancellation of license. Prom the show cause of the Petitioner, it appears that he simply said that a criminal case with regard to the allegations and an appeal against confiscation order were pending and therefore it will not be proper to cancel the license. Thus, he did not state his case against the allegations made in the show cause notice, and therefore it was rightly held that the show cause was not found satisfactory. Even if it is accepted that the proceeding for cancellation of license was initiated in terms of the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, passed in confiscation case, the show cause notice was issued as to why such proceeding be not taken in accordance with law. The impugned order does not show that the license was cancelled on the basis of any direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner. The license has been cancelled on the ground that in the confiscation case violation of PDS Order and the Unification Order was found by the Deputy Commissioner; and that the show cause filed by the Petitioner was also not satisfactory. In the circumstances, the judgment of Baiju Prasad (supra) relied by the Petitioner is of no help to him. In that case, it was found that the Deputy Commissioner had passed a clear order directing the licensing authority for cancellation of license, as the show cause submitted in that case was not found satisfactory. It was held that the show cause was to be considered by the licensing authority and it was not supposed to pass order on the basis of the consideration made by any other authority.